Hacker News Reader

Comment by xg15 | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, I'm surprised how complacent everyone here is. Yes, the internet (and social networks in particular) have been able to democratize publishing and journalism like nothing comparable before - this is a good thing. BUT this advantage is being turned into a horrible disadvantage when that same publishing is causing people to lose touch with reality.

If the end result is that we'll get flooded with information, but most of it is meaningless noise then we will have less freedom than before because we cannot be sure the any information we perceive is trustworthy. You cannot seriously want this.

View on HN

> but most of it is meaningless noise then we will have less freedom than before

What does this mean? In concrete, practical, down-to-earth sense?

> we cannot be sure the any information we perceive is trustworthy

This point was already made ages ago. Most famously, by ancient Greek skeptics, and by Descates’ cogito. We live in a world where anything may turn out to be untrustworthy. But we somehow cope, and chug along just fine.

"[...] But in the current, digitized world, trivial information is accumulated every second, preserved in all its triteness. Never fading, always accessible. Rumors about petty issues, misinterpretations, slander... All of this junk data preserved in an unfiltered state, growing at an alarming rate. It will only slow down social progress, reduce the rate of evolution. You seem to think that our plan is one of censorship. What we propose to do is not to control content, but to create context. The digital society furthers human flaws and selectively rewards development of convenient half-truths. [...] You exercise your right to 'freedom' and this is the result. All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt. The untested truths spun by different interests to churn and accumulate in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems. Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum. They stay inside their little ponds leaking whatever 'truth' suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large. The different cardinal truths neither clash nor mesh. No one is invalidated, but nobody is right. Not even natural selection can take place here. The world is being engulfed in 'truth.' We're trying to stop that from happening. It's our responsibility as rulers. Just as in genetics, unnecessary information and memory must be filtered out to stimulate the evolution of the species. Who else could wade through the sea of garbage you people produce, retrieve valuable truths and even interpret their meaning for later generations? That's what it means to create context."

–"Colonel" AI, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (2001)

I think the problem lies with the determination of what is and isn't objectionable or dangerous. Who decides? Tech megacorps?

There is plenty of content that we can all agree on being dangerous or worthy of banning, but there is plenty that is not settled, plenty that can blow in different directions with each fresh gust of the political winds.

Should this be handled legally instead, so citizens have recourse?

What happens if the consensus on approved/banned content among the censors is itself dangerous or at odds with reality?

Who is in control of the censorship and what is being censored, what is to be censored, at the biggest, most influential social media venues is an issue that cannot simply be waived away as 'corporate discretion'.

How long until we are all couching our Chinese social credit?

People have never been "in touch" with reality, they're characters in a drama play of their own imagination. Every drama needs villains and heroes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com